Saturday, August 12, 2006

For some reason I pulled down the movie "Glory" from the shelf today and watched it for what is probably the tenth time.

For those who do not know, it is the story of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry, its men and its commanding officer during our Civil War. The unit was a "colored" regiment. It was destroyed in an assault on Fort Wagner at Charleston, South Carolina in 1863.

I had my usual reaction to the drama which was fortified by and incredible sound track. It moved me deeply. I was left wondering once again about what sort of men could do what these men did.

They marched, line on line, into the blazing guns of the fort. One after another they fell to the musketry and shot from the canons. Grape tore huge holes in their formation. And yet they kept coming. Colonel Shaw, the commanding officer, fell as they were scaling the fort's walls of sand. The survivors eventually topped the fortification only to be cut to shreds.

By any reasonable measure, the assault was a fiasco. It never had much of a chance of success. But had it succeeded, Charleston would have fallen more than a year earlier than it eventually did. Was it worth a try? And what of the brave black men who laid down their lives?

What would the New York Times of today had to say about this battle? How about Ned Lamont or Dick Durbin? How about Hillary Clinton? Would they see the "glory" in the effort of these brave men? Would they have appreciated the daring of the commanders to give it a try? Rhetorical questions to which we know the answers... sadly know the answers. They would have turned this Glory into something quite different.

And, oh my, these latter day Copperheads make me angry to my core.

Oh, we'll rally 'round the flag, boys,we'll rally once again, Shouting the battle cry of freedom.We will fally from the hillside, we'll gather from the plain,Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

The Union forever, hurrah, boys, hurrah!Down with the traitor, up with the star.While we rally 'round the flag, boys, rally once again,Shouting the battle cry of freedom.

I listened to Mike Wallace being interviewed by Sean Hannity yesterday on the radio. What a train wreck. Wallace sounded (pick one or more): a. senile, b. jet-lagged, c. drunk or d. hopelessly delusional. Hannity was very gentle and respectful of the old pillar of CBS, but there was no hiding the fact that Wallace is a fool.

Wallace clearly approved of the Iranian nutjob no matter how he tried to hide it. He was also clearly sympathetic to the argument that Israel (The Zionist Entity) was the problem and that but for Israel, all would be well with the world. You see, Israel was inflicted on the Muslim world in 1947 as cover for European guilt. Assuming there was a Holocaust, something the Iranian nutbag does not concede, the reparation should have been Europe's problem and not the Muslims.

Wallace, though he does not admit it, appears to agree. He covers his sympathy with "journalistic professionalism" cliches, "I am not a commentator" (like hell you're not, Mike!). It is a painfully thin cover.

Truth be known, there is an internal logic to what the Iranian president says as I have noted in a previous post. The world was not fair in what they did in 1947 in carving Israel out of Arab land. But we are now 60 years past that. We have a new reality with which to deal. Israel is there. That point is clearly lost on Wallace.

I am not sure I will watch the interview or not. I am not sure my blood pressure can take it. On the other hand, it surely will be revealing of the MSM biases, ignorance and agenda.

What Lieberman’s showing really reveals are the limits of the supposedly “people-powered movement” behind Lamont. According to initial reports, Lieberman was strongest in Connecticut’s vestigial blue-collar areas. Lamont, a multimillionaire limousine liberal, represents the modern McGovernite rank-and-file of the Democratic party. His most ardent supporters are more likely to carry a laptop than a lunch bucket, and they are still inclined to blame America first.

Though Lieberman may — and probably will — be reelected as an independent, it’s sad news that he’s a pariah in his own party. But it’s hardly surprising.

GREEN BAY, Wisconsin (Reuters) - Karl Rove, a top political adviser to President Bush said on Thursday he had called Sen. Joseph Lieberman to wish him well in the Democratic primary in Connecticut this week.

Top Republicans, including Vice President Dick Cheney, have taken the unusual step of publicly commenting on the results of the Democratic primary that Lieberman lost on Tuesday to an anti-war challenger.

"I called him. He's a personal friend," Rove told reporters traveling with Bush to Wisconsin. The call was made late Tuesday afternoon, the day of the primary won by challenger Ned Lamont, who painted Lieberman as too cozy with Bush.

Rove said he called Lieberman "and wished him well on his election that night," and that reports he had offered to help the senator were "completely inaccurate."

Bush did not know until Thursday morning about his call to Lieberman, Rove said.

Democrats see Lieberman's loss in the primary as a referendum on Bush and the Iraq war, while Republicans say it shows that Democrats are soft on national security issues.

As if we did not already know that the Connecticut Jew was part of the Neo-Con CABAL!

And isn't it queer that the emergency is declared within a day of Republican party leader Ken Mehlman launching an all-out offensive against Democrats following Joe Lieberman's loss in Connecticut, an offensive in which Mehlman, the White House and Republican operatives are claiming that Democrats no longer care about national security or the war on terror.

And just at that moment we get our FIRST ever red alert. Beam me up, Scotty.

Do I sound as if I don't believe this alert? Why, yes, that would be correct. I just don't believe it. Read the article. They say the plot had an "Al Qaeda footprint." Ooh, are you scared yet? What that really means is that they found NO evidence whatsoever that the plot had anything to do at all with Al Qaeda, but the plot simply made them think "gosh, this is something Al Qaeda would do." That's what a footprint means. Nice, but no cigar.

Were these guys totally innocent? Probably not. But there's no reason to believe they were any more Osama's right-hand than Jose Padilla, the famed dirty-bomber who I think is now only being charged with jay-walking or something. Then there were the famous six Muslim-American guys in New York state, supposedly operating their own al Qaeda cell. Not so much. Or how about the Al Qaeda cell in Florida trying to blow up the Sears Tower? Oh that's right, they were just some demented friends squatting in a warehouse and "thinking" about it. And then there's the famous plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge - with a single blow torch.

Bottom line: Joe Lieberbush lost. The message is spreading across the land that incumbents who embrace the president are in serious trouble. And the Republicans needed to divert attention, to stop this meme in its tracks, and lo' and behold we have our first terror alert that I can recall since the last election, and it's our first ever Red Alert! What a coincidence!

I don't know what to say... it's just too ridiculous, but they keep writing these things.

I suppose that when you're entire focus for the past 6 months has been the defeat of a liberal Dem that happens to think that we shouldn't grab our ankles when it comes to the Islamofascists, you might be a little off your rocker.

Next thing you know, it will come out that US phone surveillance tipped the Brits off and the Moonbats will go absolutely raving mad that the civil liberties of these "jay-walkers" had been violated.

Touch Of GrayPosted by Plaid Adder in General DiscussionThu Aug 10th 2006, 06:55 PMSo, a major terrorist plot is foiled in England, airline traffic is FUBAR for the forseeable future, and now all of us who have to get on planes any time soon will be dealing with not only our own panic but everyone else's.

And how does the Bush administration feel about this? Well, apparently, they're stoked.

Someday, just once, I want to see someone get up in public and ask why it is that Americans are expected to feel safer with a guy in power whose political fortunes are linked this closely to terrorism. Doesn't it bother anyone else to see that every time something either blows up or almost blows up, the Bush administration lackeys get out there and say, "Hey, fabulous, this is really going to boost our approval ratings"? Wouldn't you rather have someone in power who did not see terrorism as a political godsend? Wouldn't you maybe trust a guy more whose whole political survival didn't depend on things like this happening? Who, you know, didn't think terrorism had an upside?

I merely ask.[...]

All I have to say is that it wouldn't benefit Bush politically if the Moonbat Leftists that bought, paid for, and now own the Democratic Party didn't attempt to undermine our efforts in the War On Terror at every turn - or if they just allowed themselves to pay lip service to the realities of the Global War on Islamofascism terrorism.

My point is, it's not Bush's fault that the Dems have given him an issue where the difference between the Left and Bush is as clear as night & day and anything that reminds the electorate that we are in a war on terror benefits those that are willing to fight it and not those that would prefer to stick their heads in the sand and talk about universal healthcare instead of the threat that's been building since the 1970s...

just saying... perhaps I'm a bit picky...

Unless of course the Plaid Adder is implying that the foiled terrorist attacks were part of some Rovian plot, because that would be dead on. I mean, since Bush's political fortunes are so intricately intertwined with Islamofascism's persistent attacks, it's understandable that he would aid them in making the next attack, right? (The Twinkie-meister lends a hand in the moonbat-o-sphere!!)

And perhaps Rove is behind the defeat of Joe Lieberman, the one Democrat that the Left could point to as having some spine when it came to battling the Islamofascists - making the Left look all that much more wimpy than it already does.

'Plot to blow up planes' foiledA terrorist plot to blow up planes in mid-flight from the UK to the US has been disrupted, Scotland Yard has said.

It is thought the plan was to detonate explosive devices smuggled on aircraft in hand luggage.

Police have arrested about 18 people in the London area after an anti-terrorist operation lasting several months.

Security at all airports in the UK has been tightened and delays are expected. MI5 has raised the UK threat level to critical - the highest possible.

According to MI5's website, critical threat level means "an attack is expected imminently and indicates an extremely high level of threat to the UK".

Scotland Yard said in a statement that their investigation into the alleged plot was a "major operation" which would be "lengthy and complex".

"We would like to reassure the public that this operation was carried out with public safety uppermost in our minds."

Home Secretary John Reid is due to make a statement early on Thursday morning.

Of course, we're not really "at war" - at least, the nutroots don't believe we're at war and don't see the big picture of the war on terror. Instead they focuse like a laser beam on individuals, treating the situation more like a criminal act requiring a dragnet than an actual war.

How did I know that once the news was announce - regardless of the hour - that the DUers would "question the timing?"

They're so predictable... Of course, I guess I'm just as predictable: that I would be up making fun of them. ;-)

Question: Will the Brits remain steadfast, as they did when the Nazis tried to bomb them to oblivion? Or will they turn on Blair for bringing terrorism to the homeland because of his misadventure into the tarpit of Iraq and demand that he "pull a Murtha"?

I suspect it will be the former, but am interested to find out how they react.

*** UPDATE ***NRO's The Corner highlights this passage from Tim Montgomerie, suggesting that the Brits may "go Spanish:"

It is politically vital that the police have proof that this is a genuine plot. After recent episodes - not least the false arrest of people at Forest Gate - people have declining confidence in the intelligence used by the police and government.

If the intelligence is correct - and up to ten planes were targeted by terrorists (all destined for America) - it might wake a few Britons up the danger of the terrorist threat. Britons have already largely forgotten the 7/7 attacks and those attempted just two weeks afterwards.

I fear, however, that Britain is increasingly 'Spanish' in its reaction to these incidents. Within hours there'll be pundits blaming the invasion of Iraq and Blair's support for Israel for making Britain vulnerable to these attacks.

Oh... and I am really looking forward to flying out of LaGuardia today...

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Despite my co-blogger's lamentations last night on the Lieberman loss in the CT democratic primary, I see this as nothing short of a "lose-lose" situation for the Democratic party.

The left side of the blogosphere (the "netroots" if you will) have finally been able to point to an electoral victory. Unfortunately for them, it had to be in a Democrat only field. So when it comes to their real power, its only reserved in driving their party further to the left. This will only ensure further electoral defeat in future general elections.

A smattering of liberal bloggers have been trumpeting the results as something of a new shift in politics. At the Daily Kos, kos writes:

We can make a difference, and we will. We have just seen what we can accomplish if we set our minds to it. Now while we'll work to seal the deal in Connecticut, we'll also take our energy, our passion, and yes, even our dollars and use them to teach the ruling Republican ideologues running our country into the ground that they face repercussions for their incompetence.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!! I'm sorry but a strategy used to win a primary does not translate into a general election win.

But don't tell that to Michael Moore, he's taken this as a sign that all the rules have been rewritten, the revolution has begun, and its time to start taking names, and putting people up against the wall.

Nearly every Democrat set to run for president in 2008 is responsible for this war. They voted for it or they supported it. That single, stupid decision has cost us 2,592 American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Lieberman and Company made a colossal mistake -- and we are going to make sure they pay for that mistake. Payback time started last night.

I realize that there are those like Kerry and Edwards who have now changed their position and are strongly anti-war. Perhaps that switch will be enough for some to support them. For others, like me -- while I'm glad they've seen the light -- their massive error in judgment is, sadly, proof that they are not fit for the job. They sided with Bush, and for that, they may never enter the promised land.

[...]

To every Democratic Senator and Congressman who continues to back Bush's War, allow me to inform you that your days in elective office are now numbered. Myself and tens of millions of citizens are going to work hard to actively remove you from any position of power.

Wow, thats a lot of Democrats that are going to lose their seats, by my count thats 81 members of Congress and 29 Senators. Whats the real motivation?

Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq and who continues to support, in any way, this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war. Make no mistake about it: We, the majority of Americans, want this war ended -- and we will actively work to defeat each and every one of you who does not support an immediate end to this war.

Great, I will offer my non-professional advice to the Republican leadership in Congress. Immediately (while its still fresh in their minds) announce another vote on the Murtha proposal calling for an immediate withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq (the "cut and run strategy"). Let the Democrats put their names to which side of the issue they stand on now. Let Michael Moore and the other nutroots, oops sorry, "netroots", understand who should be the ones up against the wall in the upcoming Democratic party purge. Quickly, before the November election campaigns really get started.

Either the current crop of Congress will support the war, and lose their base, or they will not support the troops, and lose the moderates. Either way, they will lose, and control of Congress will remain with the Republicans.

As Dick Morris continually pointed out during the 2004 election, John Kerry continually had to straddle two extremes to try and win the election. He had to be pro-war to the moderate, while being anti-war to his base. Hence the "voted for the war before I voted against it" line. And we saw how well that worked.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

I guess it's time to come clean... I am John A. Wilson, Class of '65 Greenwich High School. I wasn't born in Connecticut, that honor belongs to Berkeley, California. Guess who else is from Greenwich. Yep, Ned Lamont, the renowned multi-millionaire man of the people who has just taken down Joe Lieberman, hails from Greenwich. I guess I am taking this all a bit personally.

Well, The Whacko Caucus in The Senate appears to be on its way to getting a new member. Barbara Boxer will have a soulmate. Isn't that just lovely? Who knows, if "Ned" (what adult calls himself "Ned"? How about Skippy?) is a drinking man, perhaps he and Teddy will hit it off.

WASHINGTON -- My brief and unhappy experience with the hate and vitriol of bloggers on the liberal side of the aisle comes from the last several months I spent campaigning for a longtime friend, Joe Lieberman.

This kind of scary hatred, my dad used to tell me, comes only from the right wing -- in his day from people such as the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, with his tirades against "communists and their fellow travelers." The word "McCarthyism" became a red flag for liberals, signifying the far right's fascistic tactics of labeling anyone a "communist" or "socialist" who favored an active federal government to help the middle class and the poor, and to level the playing field.

I came to believe that we liberals couldn't possibly be so intolerant and hateful, because our ideology was famous for ACLU-type commitments to free speech, dissent and, especially, tolerance for those who differed with us. And in recent years -- with the deadly combination of sanctimony and vitriol displayed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage -- I held on to the view that the left was inherently more tolerant and less hateful than the right.

Now, in the closing days of the Lieberman primary campaign, I have reluctantly concluded that I was wrong. The far right does not have a monopoly on bigotry and hatred and sanctimony. Here are just a few examples (there are many, many more anyone with a search engine can find) of the type of thing the liberal blog sites have been posting about Joe Lieberman:• "Ned Lamont and his supporters need to [g]et real busy. Ned needs to beat Lieberman to a pulp in the debate and define what it means to be an AMerican who is NOT beholden to the Israeli Lobby" (by "rim," posted on Huffington Post, July 6, 2006).

• "Joe's on the Senate floor now and he's growing a beard. He has about a weeks growth on his face. . . . I hope he dyes his beard Blood red. It would be so appropriate" (by "ctkeith," posted on Daily Kos, July 11 and 12, 2005).

• On "Lieberman vs. Murtha": "as everybody knows, jews ONLY care about the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil rights movement of the 60s and so on" (by "tomjones," posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).

• "Good men, Daniel Webster and Faust would attest, sell their souls to the Devil. Is selling your soul to a god any worse? Leiberman cannot escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife's name is Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover" (by "gerrylong," posted on the Huffington Post, July 8, 2006).

One Sunday morning on C-Span I debated Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel on the Lieberman versus Lamont race. Afterwards I received a series of emails -- many of them in ALL CAPS (which often suggests the hyper-frenetic state of these extremist haters) -- that were of the same stripe as the blog posts, and filled with the same level of personal hate.

But the issue is not just emotional outbursts by these usually anonymous bloggers. A friend of mine just returned from Connecticut, where he had spoken on several occasions on behalf of Joe Lieberman. He happens to be a liberal antiwar Democrat, just as I am. He is also a lawyer. He told me that within a day of a Lamont event -- where he asked the candidate some critical questions -- some of his clients were blitzed with emails attacking him and threatening boycotts of their products if they did not drop him as their attorney. He has actually decided not to return to Connecticut for the primary today; he is fearful for his physical safety.

Dude... the Left can be absolutely nuts. I mean, check out some of the blogs in my Lefty Moonbat Blogroll. Or The Rude Pundit - who's so awful that I won't add him.

Anyway, Stupid Country asked me to comment on the testimony, so being the little circus clown that I am, here you go. Although, it should be noted that when commenting, I immediately slipped into Moonbat mode for some reason - it just seemed funnier.

Let's just go through the opening statements which are available from the WaPo. Sorry for the extraordinary length:

WARNER: Secretary Rumsfeld?

RUMSFELD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. And thank you for the invitation to testify.

Senator Clinton, thank you for seconding the motion.

(LAUGHTER)

Humor is always good... shame he had to jest about our next President forcing him to testify.

I know we all agree that the American people deserve a healthy, preferably constructive, exchange on matters that so directly affect the lives, their lives, their families' lives and their country's security.

I'm joined by General Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Abizaid, the combatant commander of the U.S. Central Command. We will be providing an update on the global struggle against violent extremists and certainly will welcome questions.

In the past few weeks, in terrorist attacks in Afghanistan, in Iraq and now by Hezbollah, we've seen the face of the early part of the 21st century. In this period of asymmetric warfare, irregular warfare, one side puts their men and women at risk in uniform and obeys the laws of war while the other side uses them against us; one side does all it can to avoid civilian casualties while the other side uses civilians as shields and then skillfully orchestrates a public outcry when the other side accidentally kills civilian in their midst; one side is held to exacting standards of near perfection -- the other side is held to no standards and no accountability at all.

Well sure, Rummy... You've got to understand that we're in a war that we want to lose, mmmmkay?

This enemy has called Iraq the central front on the war on terrorism, while some on our side seem to argue that the outcome in Iraq is not part of that global war on terror.

Hey, Chimpy W. McBushitler didn't have to send us into the tarpits of Iraq, turning us into a paper tiger.... or something like that. I mean, sure... Saddam had close ties to international terrorists and had been flouting UN conventions for 12 years.... but, duuuuuude.... he was in a box! Yeah, the box was made out of construction paper and had a handy spot for the French and the Russians and the UN to shove cash into, but it was a box, man... *water bong bubbles*

Sixteen years ago this week, Saddam Hussein's forces invaded Kuwait, killing civilians, unleashing environmental devastation, provoking a crisis that led to Iraqi attacks on Israel and threats to Saudi Arabia and others in the region.

Last week, by contrast, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the new Iraqi prime minister, who was elected by the Iraqi people under a constitution the Iraqi people wrote and ratified, came to the United States to thank the American people for their assistance in building a new future for the people of Iraq.

RUMSFELD: He had spent 25 years in opposition to the Saddam Hussein regime. And before a joint session of Congress, he noted that if terror were permitted to triumph in Iraq, then the war on terror will never be won elsewhere.

But, Rummy... we need to invest in healthcare here at home. Screw the Iraqis and the rest of the ragheads. Why should we give two flips about them? I mean, sure.... after 20 years or so, they'll end up bombing us in the US, killing thousands of Amerikkkans, but I just want to know... "When are we going to raise the minimum wage?"

The enemy understands this as well. They're waging a psychological war of attrition, planning attacks to gain the maximum media coverage and the maximum public outcry.

They want us to believe that perseverance by us is futile, rather than necessary. They want us to focus on our casualties and losses, not on the people causing the casualties and losses. They want us to think about what will happen if our forces stay in Iraq, as opposed to the consequences if our forces were to leave prematurely. They want us to be divided, because they know that when we are united they lose. They want us pointing fingers at each other, rather than pointing fingers at them.

Hey, hey, hey... are you calling the Moonbats unpatriotic? Sure, you didn't use that word, but I get the feeling you are. You sumofab!tch!!!

I know there are calls in some quarters for withdrawal or arbitrary timelines for withdrawals. The enemies hear those words as well.

We need to be realistic about the consequences. If we left Iraq prematurely, as the terrorists demand, the enemy would tell us to leave Afghanistan and then withdraw from the Middle East. And if we left the Middle East, they'd order us and all those who don't share their militant ideology to leave what they call the occupied Muslim lands from Spain to the Philippines. And then we would face not only the evil ideology of these violent extremist, but an enemy that will have grown accustomed to succeeding in telling free people everywhere what to do.

We can persevere in Iraq or we can withdraw prematurely until they force us to make a stand nearer home. But make no mistake, they're not going to give up whether we acquiesce in their immediate demands or not.Decisions about conditions for a drawdown of our forces in Iraq are best based on the recommendations of the commanders in the field and the recommendations of the gentleman sitting beside me.

RUMSFELD: We should strive to think through how our words can be interpreted by our troops, by the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, by our 42 allies in our coalition in Afghanistan, and our 34 allies in our coalition in Iraq. And we should consider how our words can be used by our deadly enemy.

Deadly enemy... I assume you're referring to the Zionists in Israel, right? I have the same sentiments as you, Rummy! Have you heard my love poem to Hizbollah? Click here!

The war on terror is going to be a long struggle. It's not something we asked for, but neither is it something we can avoid. But I remain confident in our mission, in our commanders, in our troops and in our cause. And I remain confident in the good common sense of the American people.

Americans didn't cross oceans and settle a wilderness and build history's greatest democracy only to run away from a bunch of murderers and extremists who try to kill everyone that they cannot convert and to tear down what they could never build.

I could go on and give the opening statements of the Generals, but it's just too long. And it's late.

Now, there also was much buzz about the general saying that Iraq could slide into a civil war. Not sure if you guys have been listening, but people were predicting that before we invaded.

If this is your "gotcha" moment, it just shows how little you've been paying attention these past 3 years.

But, seriously.... I'm going to have to research this, but did the Senators during World War II call Henry Stimson and Dwight Eisenhower away from their duties to come chat with them and justify their decisions?